IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19815 of 2012 ====================================================== Arbind Kumar Mandal S/O Sri Pulkit Mandal Resident Of Village- Bhorho, P.S.- Kursa Kanta, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Primary Education, Department Of Human Resource Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Araria 4. The District Programme Officer Establishment, District- Araria 5. The Block Development Officer, Block- Kursa Kanta, District- Araria 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block- Kursa Kanta, District- Araria 7. The Member, District Appointment Appelllate Tribunal, District- Araria 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kamaladaha, Block- Kursa Kanta, District- Araria 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kamaldaha, Block- Kursa Kanta, District- Araria ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhirendra Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Archana Meenakshee, A.C. to G.P.-6. For respondent No.10, 11 & 12 : Mr. Rahut @ Rahul Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-11-2025 1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.10 to 12 and learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2) The present writ application has been filed for grant of following relief :- Patna High Court CWJC No.19815 of 2012 dt.18-11-2025 2/8 (i) For quashing the final order bearing Memo No.226 dated 12.02.2012 passed by respondent No.7 in Case No.28/09 whereby the Member of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Araria has been pleased to reject the objections/complaints made by the petitioner. (ii) For directing in consequence to consider the case of the petitioner for appointments Panchayat Teacher in Kamaldaha gram Panchayat of Block- Kursa Kanta in the District of Araria. (iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the applicant against the 2006 Panchyat Teachers Appointment for which applications were invited and the petitioner had submitted his application in this regard along with the necessary certificates. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner belongs to Extremely Backward Caste category having 65-88% marks at the Intermediate level. He further submits that along with others, petitioner was called for appearing in the counseling to be held on 07.11.2006 and 08.11.2006. As per the petitioner, the present appointment on the post of primary teachers in Pacnahayat Raj, Kamaldaha in Kursa Kanta Block of District -Araria whereas per the roster approved by the State Government, 21 posts of Primary Teachers were to be filled up. The petitioner alleges that petitioner was having higher qualification was Patna High Court CWJC No.19815 of 2012 dt.18-11-2025 3/8 expecting to get appointment but was surprised to know that respondent No.10, Md. Shamim, was appointed in his place having lesser qualification. The petitioner further contends that subsequently petitioner came to know that many such deserving candidates have not been appointed and others having lesser qualification have been appointed. Complaint was raised before the then competent authority about the illegalities committed by the appointing unit. When the respondents-authorities did nothing on the complaint of the petitioner and others, the petitioner then moved before the Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority (respondent No.7) pointing out the illegalities made in the selection process and the same was registered as Case No.28/09. In the said proceeding, an interim order was passed on 17.10.2011 and by the final order dated 12.02.2012, the objections/complaints raised by the petitioner and others have been rejected in a perfunctory manner. It is this order which has been sought to be challenged/questioned by filing the present writ application. 4) While assailing the impugned order dated 12.02.2012 (Annexure-4), the petitioner has further submitted that in the impugned order, the objection raised by him has been rejected on the ground that roster point No.50 was approved for E.B.C. Patna High Court CWJC No.19815 of 2012 dt.18-11-2025 4/8 candidate. But as per the petitioner, that roster point was also reserved for handicapped category candidates upon which handicapped candidates, Md. Shamim, was appointed. As per the petitioner, the stand taken by the Member of the Appellate Authority is not correct for rejecting the claims of the petitioner as the case of the petitioner has not been properly considered. 5) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.10 to 12 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent-State submits that the order under challenge in the present writ appellation is well reasoned and speaking order and the reasoning for rejecting the application made by the petitioner is contained in the order which is reproduced hereinbelow for needful :- lefiZr iath@dkxtkr rFkk ,oa fu;ksftr f”k{kdksa }kjk lefiZr dkj.ki`PNk ,oa dkxtkrksa dh tkap dh xbZA i) vjfcan dqekj eaMy dk vkjksi lkekU; fdLe dk gS fd gels de vad okys dh fu;qfDr dh xbZ] vkSj dkmflfyax djkus ds ckotwn esjk uke es/kk lwph esa ugh vk;kA budk nksuksa gh vkjksi xyr ik;k x;k] dkmflfyax iath esa budk uke ntZ gS] pqafd v0fi0o0 dksfV esa ftl dksfV ds Jh eaMy gS ek= ,d in fjDr Fkk vkSj og jksLVj dzekad ds vuqlkj fcanq 50 gS] fcanq 50 v0fi0o0 fodykax in ds fy, vkjf{kr gSA bl in ij fodykax vH;FkhZ eks0 “kehe dh fu;qfDr dj yh xbZA ,slh fLFkfr esa vyx ls dksbZ fjfDr ugh jgus ds dkj.k Jh eaMy dk vkjksi Lor% [kkfjt gks tkrk gSA Patna High Court CWJC No.19815 of 2012 dt.18-11-2025 5/8 budk ;g Hkh vkjksi gS fd xkSre dqekj dks 69-00 izfr”kr es/kk vad jgus ds dkj.k lkekU; in ij budh fu;qfDr gksuh pkfg, Fkh] tcfd buls de es/kk vad ds lqfuy dqekj dh fu;qfDr lkekU; in ij dh xbZ] ;g vkjksi Hkh xyr gS D;ksafd xkSre dqekj dks 57-80 izfr”kr es/kk vad gh gS vkSj lqfuy dqekj dks blls vf/kd es/kk vad gS] oSls Hkh ;g fu;qfDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij cukbZ xbZ esfjV fyLV ls ugh gks jgk gS blfy, bl vkjksi dk dksbZ otg ugh gS] vr% vjfcan dqekj ds lHkh vkjksi Lor% [kkfjt gks tkrs gSA ii) dFkk&dfFkr vkjksidRrkZ xkSre dqekj 57-80] jfcUnz eqekj nso 63-80] eaVq yky nso 66-00] fnus”k izlkn ;kno lHkh fi0o0 dksfV ds vH;FkhZ gSA budk vkjksi lkekU; fdLe dk gS fd gels de es/kk vad vH;fFkZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr dj yh xbZA ;g vkjksi Hkh fcYdqy xyr gS] D;ksafd fi0o0 iq:’k dksfV esa nks in fjDr gS ,d in ij eks0 vdcj vyh ekSyoh ;ksX;rk/kkjh vkSj nwljs in ij baVj vH;FkhZ eks0 bfLr;kd dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k gSA bfLr;kd vgen dks 66-55 izfr”kr es/kk vad gSA rqyuk djus ls ;g Li’V gS fd mijksDr pkjksa vkifRrdRrkZvksa ls bl dksfV esa fu;qDr eks0 bfLr;kd dks vf/kd es/kk vad gS eks0 “kehe mnwZ in ij fu;qDr gS] blfy, ;g vkjksi Hkh izekf.kr ugh ik;k x;kA iii) lkekU; dksfV ds nks vkifRrdRrkZ vkyksd dqekj efYyd ,oa ek/ko dqekj >k dze”k% 62-00 izfr”kr ,oa 58-00 izfr”kr dk vkjksi gS fd bl dksfV esa buls de es/kk vad dh fu;qfDr dh xbZA fdlh vH;FkhZ fo”ks’k ds fo:) budk vkjksi ugh gS vFkkZr lkekU; fdLe dk vkjksi gSA ijarq bldh Hkh tkap dh xbZ] bl iapk;r esa lkekU; dksfV esa lqfuy dqekj 64-00 izfr”kr] eukst dqekj “kqDy 67-77 izfr”kr] eks0 “kfee v[rj 69-30 izfr”kr] fo|k Patna High Court CWJC No.19815 of 2012 dt.18-11-2025 6/8 eksgu feJ 63-33 izfr”kr] “kSysUnz dqekj 68-00 izfr”kr lHkh lkekU; dksfV ds vH;FkhZ Fks vkSj budh fu;qfDr dh xbZ gSA rqyuk djus ls ;g Li’V gksxk fd ikapksa fu;ksftr f”k{kdksa ;Fkk vkyksd dqekj efYyd ,oa ek/ko dqekj “kqDy ls vf/kd es/kk vad gS blfy, ;g vkjksi Hkh izekf.kr ugh ik;k x;kA iv) vkifRrdRrkZ ljLorh dqekjh fi0o0 efgyk eSfVzd 69-00 izfr”kr es/kk vad gS budk vkjksi eerk dqekjh fi0o0 efgyk fu;ksftr f”k{kd ds fo:) gS] tkap ls Li’V gqvk fd ljLorh dqekjh ek= eSfVzd ikl gS vkSj eerk dqekjh baVj ikl gSA f”k{kd fu;kstu esa baVj ikl dh fu;qfDr dh tkuh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ljLorh dqekjh dk vkjksi Hkh cscqfu;kn gSA v) ch.kk nsoh us fdlh Hkh Lrjksa ij vkifRr nk;j ugh fd;k gS] vkifRrdRrkZvksa us gh budk uke “kkfey dj fn;k Fkk] fQj Hkh bldh tkap dh xbZA vkosnu dzekad 100 dkmflfyx dzekad 11 ij budk uke ntZ gSA dkmflfyx esa 57-90 izfr”kr es/kk vad fn[kk;k x;k gS vkSj vkosnu iath esa 64-30 izfr”kr fn[kk;k x;k gS ;g nksuksa fLFkfr fookn dks mRiUu djrk gS mUgksaus u rks vkosnu fn;k gS vkSj u gh mifLFkr gksdj izek.ki= ;k vadi= izLrqr fd;k gSA vr% vkjksi izekf.kr ugh gksrs gS] D;ksafd lansg dh fLFkfr esa bldk ykHk fu;ksftr f”k{kdksa dks fn;k tk jgk gSA vi) Jh jke ukjk;.k ;kno fi0o0 ,oa n;kuan ikloku v0tk0 ds vkifRrdRrkZ gS vyx ls dksbZ vkifRr ugh fn;k gS mij of.kZr vkifRr vkosnu esa dgha&dgha uke ,oa gLrk{kj fn;k gqvk gS] lquokbZ esa Hkh dHkh mifLFkr gq, ugh gq, vkSj u gh vkosnu iath ,oa dkmflfyax iath esa uke ntZ gS vr% vkifRrdRrkZ QthZ gSA vii) vkifRrdRrkZ dqeksn dqekj ikloku] jktegy flag] ljkst dqekjh] vatqyrk >k ,oa vejukFk us u rks dHkh vkifRr vkosnu vyx ls fn;k gS Patna High Court CWJC No.19815 of 2012 dt.18-11-2025 7/8 vkSj u gh vkifRr ntZ djkbZ gS] lquokbZ ds le; esas Hkh dHkh lnsg mifLFkr ugh gq, ek= vjfcan dqekj eaMy ds vkosnu esa bu lcksa dk uke ntZ gSA blfy, ;s lHkh vkjksidRrkZ ugh ekus tk;saxsA fu’d’kZ blizdkj lHkh ¼dFkk&dfFkr½ vkifRrdRrkZvksa }kjk nk;j fd;s x;s vihy dh tkap ¼;Fkk mijksDr½ ls Li’V gksrk gS fd vkifRr lkekU; fdLe dh Fkh fuf”pr rkSj ij fdlh vH;FkhZ ds mij ugh yxk;k x;k Fkk] fQj Hkh tkap dh xbZ vkSj dksbZ Hkh vkifRr izekf.kr ugh gks ik;kA vr% vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd varfje vkns”k la[;k Kkikad 135] fnukad 17-10-2011 dks okil fy;k tkrk gS] ;kfu dksbZ Hkh dkjZokbZ vc visf{kr ugh jg xbZ gS lHkh fu;ksftr f”k{kd iwoZor dk;Zjr jgsaxsA muds osru Hkqxrku iwoZor gksrk jgsxkA bl vkns”k ds lkFk okn dh dk;Zokgh lekIr dh tkrh gSA lnL; ftyk f”k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkf/kdkj] vjfj;k 6) On being confronted with the above reasoning given by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not come up with any satisfactory answer and in fact on perusal of Clasue-VIII of Resolution / Sankalp contained in Letter bearing Memo No.11/A 4A-03/2000 Ka. 62 dated 05.01.2007 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed in conformity with the Clause 8 of the Sankalp/Resolution. Patna High Court CWJC No.19815 of 2012 dt.18-11-2025 8/8 7) In such view of the matter, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interfering with the impugned order and hence the present writ application is dismissed. sanjeev/- (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 18.11.2025 Transmission Date